Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00

On 17/06/2017 07:14, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Philip Homburg
...
>> The most contentious point in draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00
>> is that it tries to change the IID length used for SLAAC.

I find this allegation hard to reconcile with the following sentence
in the Recommendations section of the draft:

"But operationally we recommend,
barring strong considerations to the contrary, using 64-bits for
SLAAC..."

> That should hardly be contentious, on technical grounds, because the problem is not difficult to solve. 

Most problems can be solved as a "small matter of programming", but given
that the deployed base of IPv6, which assumes /64 for SLAAC, is now much
larger** than the whole Internet was when the /64 boundary was defined,
I really don't think that is going to happen for any existing technology.

This draft is not actually about *changing* /64. It's about setting the
the right balance between scenarios where /64 is appropriate and those
where it isn't, given that routing is already defined to handle any
prefix length.

> It might be contentious only tangentially, in the sense that it makes variable prefix lengths so easy to contend with?

I don't understand that sentence.

** I haven't worked out the ratio, but in any case it's apparent that
the operational IPv6 network is already much bigger than the IPv4
network was when CIDR & BGP4 were deployed in 1993. We'd be playing
with fire to change anything fundamental for the existing deployment.

   Brian

> 
> Bert
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 